The court denied anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the charges, the applicant's extensive criminal history, and the risk of influencing witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of applicant - Sikandar Alam, under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0169 of 2024, under Sections 302, 120-B, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Jaunpur.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has submitted that applicant was not named in the F.I.R., his name was disclosed in the statement of informant. It is further submitted that informant/opposite party no.2 was a reporter of Sudarshan News and R.T.I. Activist. It is further submitted that some dispute was going on between applicant and informant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. In the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed the name of applicant but in subsequent statement he has taken the name of applicant first time due to ulterior motive. It is clarified that brother of informant being activist was investigating the irregularities regarding ‘Madarsa properties’ but applicant was not connected with the said ‘Madarsa’ so, there was no reason available to commit the offence by the applicant as alleged in the F.I.R. It is submitted that there is no credible evidence or material on record to connect the applicant to the instant offence. The applicant is also suffering from some brain and heart disease and treatment is going on in the hospital at Mumbai since 2003. It is also submitted that previous criminal history has been explained in respective paragraphs of the paper book. He has been falsely roped in the offence punishable under Section 302, 120-B, 506, 34 I.P.C. and has great apprehension of arrest by the police.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail at the event of the arrest. He has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and also undertaken that he shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant anticipatory bail application and has submitted that applicant has antecedents of 17 criminal cases, all are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender. It is also submitted that F.I.R. was lodged on 14.05.2024 and since then he is absconding from the police and not co-operating with the investigation. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued on 26.03.2025, in spite of that applicant is not appearing before the police or investigating agency. It is further submitted that applicant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 for quashing of F.I.R., which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2024. It is also submitted that after dismissal of the said writ petition applicant has chosen not to appear before the investigating agency and avoiding the investigation. He has charged for the heinous crime for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with Sections 120-B, 506, 34 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that the evidences collected by the police during investigation, is credible evidence to connect the applicant with the offence as alleged. There are no contradictions in statement of the informant. It is also submitted that if, applicant will release on anticipatory bail, he may influence the investigation and also influence the witnesses.

5. The le